David,
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:24:40PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > I'd be all for this. I would also expect that the fees we'd lose with
> > members leaving would be less than the cost for running the
> > Web Services
> > Activity. So I consider that a good thing. Plus, they'll be back, if
> > they don't go out of business first. 8-)
> >
>
> Good thing only a tiny number of member companies have this reckless and
> irresponsible attitude, though they certainly try to make up for numbers
> with volume. And after a bit of time and hard work, it is now it is public
> record the full extent of the desire of a few inside and outside the W3C to
> circumvent and over-ride W3C Process and the membership's publicly stated
> goals.
You're assuming that Web services have anything to do with the Web.
Anne acknowledged, I believe, that this is not the case, and you've been
told the same thing by authorities on Web architecture.
As Simon said, if a mistake has been made, I hope that we can all be big
enough to admit it, learn from it, and move ahead with allowing the W3C
to lead the Web to its full potential.
The Process document is not static. If it were, the W3C would have no
AB, no TAG, and an IPR policy that would have spelled its demise long
ago. It evolves, because the W3C must evolve.
MB
--
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.comhttp://www.markbaker.cahttp://www.planetfred.com